SGST Officers Can’t Detain Inter-State Goods Without Jurisdiction Under IGST: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that State GST officers cannot exercise powers under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Acts in respect of inter-State movement of goods under the IGST framework unless proper jurisdictional conditions are satisfied. The bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar has the proper officer, under the APGST Act, at the time of intercepting the conveyance or vehicle, would not be aware whether the consignment is under the IGST Act or any of the other GST Acts, until the vehicle is stopped and the documents are verified. In a case where it is found that the consignment relates to an interstate supply, the state officer would have to permit the vehicle to continue its journey. However, if any discrepancies are found, it would be open to the state officer to forward the said discrepancies to the proper officer of the consignee as well as the consignor. If it is found that, the consignment is not accompanied by necessary way bills, it would be open to the state officer, to presume that the consignment is an intra state supply, unless that presumption is rebutted The petitions arose from multiple instances where goods in transit—originating and destined outside Andhra Pradesh—were intercepted by the State GST department at check posts within the State. In most cases, the consignments were accompanied by valid documents such as invoices and e-way bills. However, the authorities detained and in some cases confiscated the goods under Section 129 and Section 130 of the GST Acts, primarily on grounds of: alleged undervaluation of goods, mismatch in quantity or description, and suspicion regarding tax evasion. The petitioners challenged these actions as being without jurisdiction and contrary to law. The High Court examined two central legal questions: Whether State GST officers have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 for inter-State transactions governed by the IGST Act. Whether issues like valuation can be adjudicated during detention proceedings under Section 129. The Court undertook a detailed examination of the GST framework, including Section 129 and Section 130 of the GST Acts, definition of “proper officer” under GST laws, cross-empowerment provisions under Section 6 of the CGST Act and Section 4 of the IGST Act, and constitutional provisions under Articles 246A and 269A. The court observed that GST introduced a dual taxation system where both Centre and States operate simultaneously, but inter-State supplies fall exclusively within Parliament’s domain under the IGST Act. The Court held that the officers under State GST Acts are not automatically empowered to act under the CGST or IGST Acts. Cross-empowerment applies only where the taxpayer is administratively assigned to that authority. Jurisdiction depends on taxpayer allocation and statutory authorization, not mere physical presence of goods within a State. The Court explicitly disagreed with an earlier view of the Madras High Court to the extent it suggested absence of jurisdiction solely due to lack of notification, instead emphasizing taxpayer assignment as the key criterion. While acknowledging that officers assigned under State GST may act as “proper officers” for general transit checks, the Court made an important distinction for IGST-related inter-State movement, additional jurisdictional limitations apply. State officers cannot indiscriminately invoke detention and confiscation powers for goods merely passing through the State when neither origin nor destination lies within their jurisdiction. The Court also questioned the validity of detention based on valuation disputes, noting that Section 129 is meant for procedural violations in transit, not for adjudicating complex valuation issues. Detention cannot be justified merely on suspicion of undervaluation when proper documents are present. The High Court set aside the impugned detention and confiscation orders, including those issued in Form GST MOV-11, holding them to be without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal, and violative of constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 The court has directed release of goods and conveyances without insisting on penalty or security in cases. Case Details Case Title: Golden Traders Versus The Deputy Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Citation: JURISHOUR-567-HC-2026(AP) Case No.: W.P.No.541 of 2026 Date: 01.04.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: P. Girish Kumar Counsel For Respondent: R. Kalyan Chakravarthy Click Here To Read Order Read More: CBIC Assigns Additional Charge of Lucknow GST Zone to Chief Commissioner Manas Ranjan Mohanty

SGST Officers Can’t Detain Inter-State Goods Without Jurisdiction Under IGST: AP High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

SC Upholds S. 74 Penalty: Curative Petition Dismissed, Non-Filing & Tax Non-Payment Treated as Suppression of Facts

ITC Refund Limitation Must Be Counted Based on Nature of Supply, Not Mechanical Application of S. 54: Delhi High Court

CUSTOMS ACT | Nominal Shortfall in Penalty Can’t Deny Amnesty Benefit Under Customs Law: CESTAT

Insurance, Hedging & Employee Training Services Qualify as Input Services: CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit

More like this

SC Upholds S. 74 Penalty: Curative Petition Dismissed, Non-Filing & Tax Non-Payment Treated as Suppression of Facts

ITC Refund Limitation Must Be Counted Based on Nature of Supply, Not Mechanical Application of S. 54: Delhi High Court

CUSTOMS ACT | Nominal Shortfall in Penalty Can’t Deny Amnesty Benefit Under Customs Law: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories